However, experts are leery to say whether Michigan is out of the woods yet.

“We’ve been hovering around 15 percent since July,” said Jim Rhein, Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth economic analyst. “I think the trend is really that it’s flat, and that’s a good sign. The first half of 2009 was very difficult.”

From January to June, Michigan’s unemployment rate jumped 3.6 percent, to 15.2 from 11.6.

Associate economics professor Jason Taylor was more optimistic about the data.

“Unemployment rates can sometimes be deceiving,” he said. “In this case, however, total employment actually increased in the state for the first time since May 2007, several months before the credit crunch arrived and sent the (United States) economy into recession.”

Against the grain

As Michigan’s unemployment rate decreased for October, the U.S. rate increased to 10.2 percent from 9.8. One reason for Michigan’s improvement, Taylor said, may be that Michigan’s economy has fallen farther and faster than other states.

“We can hope that Michigan has hit rock bottom,” he said. “It makes sense that if we hit rock bottom before everyone else, we would start improving before everyone else.”

The largest growth was 25,000 jobs in professional and business employment, followed by 11,000 jobs in health and education services and 5,000 jobs in construction.

Taylor said the fact the professional and business sector added the majority of jobs is a good sign this is a permanent change.

“This employment bump is not just the effects of a temporary crutch like Cash for Clunkers artificially boosting employment in what is an otherwise declining sector,” he said.

The addition of construction jobs was a surprising and encouraging change, Rhein said.

“Construction had been down quite a bit,” he said. “It’s a very good sign, but we’re going to be very hesitant to say we’re making a huge turnaround at this point.”

Michigan’s unemployment rate is still 6 percentage points higher than it was in Oct. 2008 (9.1 percent).

“I’m still pessimistic about this happening given the negative business environment in the state, but we can hope and pray,” Taylor said. “One month does not make a trend. We should know more in the next few months.”

I’m sorry, but the grace period has passed, and my Obama buzz is wearing off.

It has been more than a year since we elected you, and more than nine months since you were inaugurated. Do you remember how wonderful it was? The thousands of people in Grant Park the night of your election, the millions more watching on TV as you promised “change and progress” for America?

I not only believed you, but I campaigned for you. I did the door-to-door, I did the voter-registration drives.

But now that I’m coming down, I am not feeling as confident anymore.

I am not much different from many college students in that I saw great potential in what you had to offer.
I still do.

However, the time is fast approaching to own up to the nation’s problems.

Yes, you inherited not one, but two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, you were left with an unprecedented national deficit. And yes, as we all know in Michigan, the economy looked like Luke Skywalker after his first duel with Darth Vader — dejected and crippled. But we can only blame former President George W. Bush for so long.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Web site, the US unemployment rate was 7.6 percent when you took office last January. Today, it is hovering around 9.8 percent, slowly creeping toward the dreaded 10 percent marker. The last time unemployment was this high was August of 1982.

A 2.2 percent rise of unemployment since you took office cannot be blamed completely on former President Bush’s policies. It is time to shoulder some of the responsibility yourself.

Since January, we have had the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors, the Recovery Act and a debate on health care reform, which is becoming less productive every day.

People are starting to lose faith in your message, Mr. President. Even a member of your own caucus, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) has said he will filibuster any healthcare reform bill that contains a public option.

Responsibility and accountability were constant themes on the campaign trail. You said countless times while campaigning that you would accept responsibility for your actions as President of the United States, but I have yet to see this.

Don’t get me wrong though; I am rooting for you, Obama. I still believe in your message, for the most part. I would love to see an economy revitalized and diversified. I would love for everyone to have health care. And I would love to see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq come to an end.

But until then, I would like to see more action from your administration and less speeches. Words mean nothing without action.

I am doing my best to keep the faith, but it is a challenge when the majority of the economic news — especially in Michigan — is more and more depressing.

Let’s see if you can turn “Hope and Change” into “Policy and Results.”

I’m not going to talk about whether President Barack Obama’s claim that 600,000-plus jobs were saved or created due to the stimulus is true — I’ll let the Wall Street Journal and CNN slug that one out.

And in response to Hoffman’s column, CNN isn’t a “Hard News” channel. Watch five minutes of the tripe that Rick Sanchez spews and you’ll see why Fox News beats it in the ratings.

What I am going to talk about is that there should be two unemployment numbers: voluntary and involuntary.

What do I mean by voluntary and involuntary unemployment? After all, unemployment is unemployment, right?

Well, not quite.

Just like strike prices exist in the realm of commodities trading or even deciding whether that quart of ice cream is cheap enough, such a concept also applies to the labor market.

Both the employer and the potential employee have their strike prices. It also may be called reservation wage for the employee.

If the employer’s strike price is lower than what the potential employee’s strike price is, you will have a condition of voluntary unemployment. An example of this is that John will only work for $10 an hour, but Company X is only willing to pay $8 an hour.

On the other hand, if John is willing to work for $5 an hour and the company is willing to hire him at that price, but is prohibited from doing so, we have involuntary unemployment.

The astute reader will have quickly pieced together this puzzle rated for ages 4 and up – minimum wage laws, in this case, have led to an increase in involuntary unemployment due to an artificial price floor.

This is why I consider it crucial to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary unemployment when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports unemployment rates.

Even better, there should be reports on how many people and businesses would be willing to transact below this artificial price floor. That way, minimum wage laws can be seen as the true job killer it is in rough economic times.

If you could get a job for $5 and it kept a roof over your head and food in your stomach, wouldn’t you take it?
In case you don’t believe this is verifiable empirically, feel free to take a look at it all laid down in a simple Econ
222 assignment (http://tinyurl.com/yj56afs).

But let’s just keep this little secret between you and me — we wouldn’t want President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan to look bad, now would we?